2018 Was Earth's Fourth-Hottest Year on Record: NOAA and NASA Report (cnbc.com) 183
The string of hotter-than-average annual temperatures continued in 2018, as Earth experienced its fourth-hottest year on record, according to NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [PDF]. From a report: Also in 2018, the United States suffered 14 weather and climate disasters with costs surpassing $1 billion during a warmer- and wetter-than-average year, NOAA reports. Global temperatures across land and sea were 1.42 degrees Fahrenheit above the 20th century average, making 2018 the fourth-warmest year since record-keeping began in 1880, NOAA said in a report Thursday. In a separate report, NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies said global temperatures were 1.5 degrees above the 1951 to 1980 mean, also the fourth highest going back to 1880.
The 2-degrees Fahrenheit increase in global temperatures since the late 19th century has been driven largely by growing carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions from human activity, said the institute's director, Gavin Schmidt. The conclusion reaffirms NASA's long-established finding that man-made emissions are driving climate change, which President Donald Trump and some senior administration officials frequently challenge. By both agencies' measures, Earth has now recorded its five hottest annual average temperatures in the past five years. "2018 is yet again an extremely warm year on top of a long-term global warming trend," Schmidt said in a press release.
The 2-degrees Fahrenheit increase in global temperatures since the late 19th century has been driven largely by growing carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions from human activity, said the institute's director, Gavin Schmidt. The conclusion reaffirms NASA's long-established finding that man-made emissions are driving climate change, which President Donald Trump and some senior administration officials frequently challenge. By both agencies' measures, Earth has now recorded its five hottest annual average temperatures in the past five years. "2018 is yet again an extremely warm year on top of a long-term global warming trend," Schmidt said in a press release.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: B..b..but... (Score:2)
Ice cores and tree ring data count as measurements, so about half a million years. No, not long.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
This is not a statistically valid way to confirm CO2 based global warming. For example, according to human measurements that I have access to:
Members of the class of years in the "five hottest years on record"
* Every year from 1850-1855
* Every year from 1866-1870
* Every year from 1877-1878
* Every year from 1887-1888
* Every year from 1896-1897
* Every year from 1913-1914
* 1921
* Every year from 1926-1928
* Every year from 1936-1944
etc, etc
The global temperature appears to have had a positive slope for at least
Re:B..b..but... (Score:5, Informative)
If anything, that falsifies CO2 based global warming because there was warming before there was abnormally high CO2.
There is indeed an underlying warming trend that has been going on since the 1600s. There is a longer warming trend that began abruptly 11,700 years ago, triggering the Holocene glacial retreat [wikipedia.org].
The current warming trend, presumably induced by CO2, is happening faster, and overlaying that longer and gentler warming trends.
The existence of these long term trends does not falsify AGW.
you need more than "it is warmer", because "it will be warmer" was the best guess prior to any thought of CO2 base warming
Absolutely. You can't just say "it's getting warmer". The important question is "how much warmer?"
Worse than it seems (Score:3)
Measuring temperatures on land surfaces and sea surfaces gives a misleading sense of the heating of the planet. Almost certainly 2018 is the warmest year in recent times if you consider the total heat content of the seas. Deep ocean temperatures are rising but there is not yet systematic measurement of the deep seas. But as long as CO2 keeps rising, it's very likely that total heating of the Earth does too. Every year is the hottest year on record and the capacity of the deep ocean to moderate surface tempe
Re:B..b..but... (Score:4, Informative)
Wait, you are saying that the temperature has been increasing over the past 200 years. Right when we started massively burning fossil fuels.
And this is supposed to falsify the claim that CO2 cause global warming?
thankfully, we have proxy data for years before that. And guess what, it's pretty flat overall, even if there was a medieval warm period.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Even the medieval warm period warmed much more slowly than what happened in the past 200 years.
Re:B..b..but... (Score:5, Informative)
Wait, you are saying that the temperature has been increasing over the past 200 years. Right when we started massively burning fossil fuels.
The amount of fossil fuels burned 200 years ago was negligible. The warming trend in that era was likely caused by variations in solar radiation, heightened volcanic activity, and changes in ocean circulation. The Little Ice Age [wikipedia.org] was ending, so the increase in temperature was more of returning to normal. 1816 was known as the Year without a Summer [wikipedia.org], or more colloquially as "Eighteen hundred and froze to death". From there, there was nowhere to go but up.
Fossil fuel consumption didn't add appreciable CO2 to the atmosphere until the 20th century, when temperature rises appear to have accelerated.
Re:B..b..but... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:B..b..but... (Score:5, Informative)
The amount of non-fossil fuels burned 200 years ago was not negligible [wikipedia.org]. The fuel for steam engines may have been renewable, but it was not renewed. The vegetation removed in cropland conversion wasn't all used as building materials either. Fossil fuel consumption was dwarfed by land use emissions [skepticalscience.com] until the second half of the 20th century, while the latter started adding appreciable CO2 to the atmosphere in the second half of the 19th century.
Re: (Score:2)
Excellent post. I will add, in addition, that land use was also responsible for the coldest period of the Little Ice Age, when CO2 levels plunged from about 1550 to 1610 [researchgate.net], and then started to recover.
What happened to CO2 levels between 1550 and 1610? Well, starting in 1539 Hernando de Soto, starting with 660 men (carrying typhus, measles, and small pox) began to explore North America. De Soto encountered dense settlements along the Gulf Coast, and rivers of the South East. The next group of explorers found t
Re: (Score:2)
The warming trend in that era was likely caused by variations in solar radiation,
Unlikely.
Solar activity does not vary enough to have any significant effect on earth.
Re: (Score:2)
Note that 200 years ago, the USA used a bit less than 200ktons of coal. Now, we're using on the order of 1Gton of coal per year.
While I consider a Gton of coal per year to be a serious problem, I fail to see the environmental impact of 200ktons of coal per year. At which rate that Gton of coal would last 5000 years or so....
Re:B..b..but... (Score:5, Informative)
The big "but" here is that emitting carbon dioxide is only one of the forcing factors. The other big big forcing factor in carbon dioxide that's affected by humans is due to deforestation . There was a enormous amount of deforestation going on in the 1800s.
Re: (Score:2)
Much of which was burned. It was due to shortages of wood to burn that coal became popular as a source of heat, both for heating and industrial use.
Interestingly, here in BC, the largest emitter of CO2 last year was the forests, largely due to fire as well as destructive logging practices which includes slash burning and the mountain pine beetle.
Fires alone released estimated 190 million tonnes of CO2 emissions in 2017 and likely a similar amount in 2018, compared to 63 million tonnes by the usual subjects
Re: (Score:2)
Do note, though, that world carbon-dioxide emission is 37 billion tons, so the 190 million tons from fire and logging and insects is still a comparatively small number. (Large compared to other British Columbia emissions mainly because British Columbia doesn't have a lot of other emissions).
Still: very interesting data; something to think about. thanks for posting it.
Re: (Score:2)
Look, I'm not arguing in favor or against. I am saying that the current temperature does not prove anything.
By the way, your argument seems to imply that deforestation may be more significant than CO2. Does that make you a denier, or is that OK as long as you still blame the humans?
Re: (Score:2)
Look, I'm not arguing in favor or against. I am saying that the current temperature does not prove anything.
I don't even know what you mean by "doesn't prove anything". This is not mathematics. We're talking about evidence, not mathematical "proof".
By the way, your argument seems to imply that deforestation may be more significant than CO2. Does that make you a denier, or is that OK as long as you still blame the humans?
Neither. Human-produced carbon dioxide is one of the forcing factors of climate. It is not the only forcing factor. The total carbon dioxide forcing, of course, is the integrated carbon dioxide input into the atmosphere minus the carbon dioxide removed from the atmosphere. If you had somehow simplified that in your mind to "all that matters is that we burn coal, nothin
Re: (Score:3)
That'd only show CO2 was not the *sole cause* of warming (which should be obvious) - if you'd demonstrated significant warming before significant CO2 (which you haven't).
There are many short-term causes (like ENSO et al [wikipedia.org]) and weaker long-term causes (like orbital cycles, and changes in solar output & vulcanism) - even colonisation [bbc.com] can have an indirect effect. None of these come close to accounting for the dramatic temperature rise we've observed.
But CO2 does. We've measured its effect in the lab, and mea
Re: (Score:3)
ENSO has no effect in global warming.
Neither El Nino nor La Nina are warming or cooling phenonema.
Both effects only shift the areas where it is particular warm and areas where it is particular cold around. That is all.
Re: (Score:2)
It's true they don't affect overall heat content, but they can still have short-term effects [wikipedia.org] on atmospheric temperatures, as they cycle heat between the ocean surface and subsurface.
Re: (Score:2)
Using that same logic, people die of cancer even if they have never smoked; therefore, smoking doesn't cause cancer.
Data [Re:B..b..but...] (Score:3)
The global temperature appears to have had a positive slope for at least 200 years.
I notice you fail to give any source for your assertion.
Here is a graph of temperature data reconstructed back to 1850:
http://berkeleyearth.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/land-and-ocean-sea-ice-comparison-large-1024x788.png [berkeleyearth.org]
The slope has a marked increase after 1900.
Re: (Score:2)
Um, that is not temperature, that is see ice. Google "global average temperature", and use the NASA data (I believe). I'm pretty sure I gave a link to the source data in this thread somewhere.
No. [Re:Data [Re:B..b..but...]] (Score:2)
Um, that is not temperature, that is see ice. Google "global average temperature", and use the NASA data (I believe).
No, it's a graph of temperature. Read the axis label.
I happened to pick a temperature graph that shows two different methods of reconstructing past temperature, depending on whether the reconstruction puts sea ice in the "land" category or the "ocean" category, and showing that the TEMPERATURE result is the same. I picked that temperature graph, out of several choices, because it was the one that happened to a horizontal axis that covered the years in question.
I could have used a different one, this one for
Re: (Score:2)
Citation needed.
The industrial revolution started between 1760-1840, depending upon whos benchmark you adopt as a starting point Unsurprisingly, the same period includes a marked and sustained uptick in global average CO2 concentration from ~280 ppm. 1850 starts at 285 ppm and it keeps on climbing...
Re: (Score:2)
Anything before about 1900 is not reliable though, as the equipment and measurement techniques and global coverage were inadequate.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:B..b..but... (Score:4, Insightful)
BTW, according to NOAA satellites, 2019 was the 14th hottest year and 2018 was the 23rd hottest year.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/la... [drroyspencer.com]
Personally, I think the satellite data set is better - it is harder to mess with, avoids the problems of only measuring near humans, and measures more of the system in question.
But again, none of this really says anything about proving CO2 based AGW.
Re:B..b..but... (Score:5, Informative)
BTW, according to NOAA satellites, 2019 was the 14th hottest year and 2018 was the 23rd hottest year.
1. This is not surface temperature. They call it "lower atmosphere," but from a satellite perspective, "lower" means temperature about 5 km above the surface. The discussion you're replying to here is about surface temperature.
2. The satellites (despite what Spencer implies) don't measure temperature. They measure intensity of oxygen microwave emission on the integrated optical path between the satellite and the ground. They use a algorithm to "correct" this data to subtract out noise and turn the line-averaged intensities into altitude-dependent temperatures (by basically subtracting out the upper atmosphere from the data using upper-atmosphere data from a different wavelength), but there is some amount of disagreement over how to accurately correct the data, and different groups come up with different answers. There's a Wikipedia article on it here: that gives a good introduction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Summary, this is measuring a different thing, and the meaning of the data is somewhat less clear.
Surface and altitude [Re:B..b..but...] (Score:2)
Best moving the goal posts slashpost post yet today. The data doesn't mean what we want, so we deny it. You are as bad as the deniers who think global warming is a hoax. You accept all the data, you don't remove outliers without a damn good reason (ideology is not a reason)
Um, no. The article and this discussion has been about SURFACE temperature. The post by WhiplashII linked to (one researcher's reconstructions of) temperature at 5 KM ALTITUDE. Saying "that's not surface temperature" is not "moving the goal posts"-- it's pointing out that the post was not relevant to the discussion.
Re: (Score:2)
But again, none of this really says anything about proving CO2 based AGW.
Out of interest do you dispute the absorbtion and emission spectra of CO2?
Re: (Score:2)
That is a strange question. Do I dispute that we "KNOW" it? Yes. It is wrong in at least the hundredth decimal point. We likely will never know all there is to know about it.
I believe what you are trying to imply is that if you believe that CO2 can absorb IR energy then the case is closed and global warming is going to kill us all.
For more clarity, here is what I believe:
1) The science isn't settled. Gravity isn't settled! If someone says that the science is settled, they are merely trying to cut off d
Re: (Score:2)
That's not a coincidence.
So, let's look at your latest claims.
1. Yeah, popularization bullshit. You know what? Gravity actually is settled. If you want to argue what "settled" means, and make it a point to say "gravity isn't settled science!"--well, fine, but it's pretty clear you're really obfuscating. That is philosophy, not science.
2. It doesn't matter wha
Re: (Score:2)
1. Even gravity isn't settled: https://youtu.be/8RCG_4JG6Hg?t... [youtu.be] (really, you should watch - if it pans out this as big as relativity - extraordinary claim require extraordinary proof of course)
2. OK, but it is still annoying. And to be honest, I really think the politicians are driving most of the discord on this.
3. Micheal Mann (the actual scientist writing many of those papers, and the actual gatekeeper of what gets published) was the one testifying to congress.
4. I actually don't visit any "denialist"
Re: (Score:2)
When you say "gravity isn't settled science!" you are either a. clueless, or b., pretty much saying that the word had no meaning. (Or both.)
If your sentence saying gravity isn't settled is intended to mean "climate science is settled to the same extent as the understanding of gravity is," then you're saying climate science is pretty damn well accepted in the scientific community and is well understood experimentally. Nobody with a clue challenges 9.81 as the acceleration of gravity at the
Re: (Score:2)
Climate is nothing but averaged weather, both in space and time, which is what they are doing here.
Re: (Score:3)
Sort of - this is where the real dragons lay.
If you take a chaotic process and average it, you get noise out. So it has not been demonstrated that averaging out the weather (almost certainly a chaotic process) produces anything of value.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
It is an open question weather (sic ;}) simulations of Earth's climate have any value at all. All averaging values together does is send the signal through a low pass filter. That, by itself, is not enough to say it has any relevance to anyth
Re: (Score:2)
So it has not been demonstrated that averaging out the weather (almost certainly a chaotic process) produces anything of value.
Tell you what, since you don't believe that averaging weather is useful then I have a wager for you. If it snows in London in on August 10th this year I will pay you $100,000, but if it fails to snow, you pay me $100.
If averaging weather is useless then you'd be a fool not to take the wager since your expected gain is $50,050. If you refuse to take the wager then you are admitting t
Averaging reduces noise [Re:B..b..but...] (Score:3)
Sort of - this is where the real dragons lay.
If you take a chaotic process and average it, you get noise out.
No, in fact you're wrong here. If you average noisy data, you get less noisy data.
This is fundamental to measurement theory.
https://www.electronicdesign.com/analog/understand-tradeoffs-increasing-resolution-averaging
http://www.ni.com/white-paper/3488/en/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signal_averaging
https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/image-averaging-noise.htm
Climate is Global, not local [Re:B..b..but...] (Score:2)
...weather isn't the same as climate. At least that's what all the AGW zealots say when we have a cold snap.
Correct: weather is not the same thing as climate. A single cold winter in a single place is not evidence against global climate change, nor, on the other hand, is a single warm winter in a single place evidence for global climate change.
That's why this is relevant: this is not a single location, it is a global average, and it is not a single day or even a single month, it is a average over a year.
And it is one data point in a trend: https://www.giss.nasa.gov/rese... [nasa.gov]
That is what we mean by climate.
But
Re: (Score:2)
But you knew that.
I don't think he knew that.
He is just an idiot like that guy I had a conversation with lately. I mentioned I live in Isan (Thailand) and that it had only about 3 - 4 days of rain during the last 5 month.
He did not believe it and posted a link as answer. "To correct me". ... well, Bangkok.
The link with average rain in "Thailand"
In the further conversation he simply did not grasp that BKK is more than 1000km away, that Isan is a high plateau surrounded by mountains and BKK is at the coast ..
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure that you understand what an average is. So let's work off that. Weather is whatever it is when you walk outside. People record that day's weather, temperature, and other points of data. Continue to do this for a set of locations of which, when talking about global temperatures, is a lot of data points per day. At the end of the year, what you will do is then take the average of those data points for region/entire planet, for month/season/year. The last one of each, average for entire p
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
only idiot zealots still deny AGW
"if you disagree with my orthodoxy it's heresy!"
who's the zealot?
Re: (Score:2)
AGW is well documented in scientific papers. There are easy to read and understand summaries for the general public. No excuse to still be a denier.
Re: (Score:2)
Let me alter it slightly:
Being called foolish for disagreeing with the commonly held position does not mean the person calling you an idiot is religous. Sometimes it means you really are an idiot.
Re: (Score:2)
only idiot zealots still deny AGW
"if you disagree with my orthodoxy it's heresy!"
who's the zealot?
Do you make the same argument about the flat Earth?
Perhaps the germ theory of disease, something that some were very skeptical about? Usually those who had to change if the germ theory was true. Surprising resistance to washing at the time, even with studies showing higher survival rates when surgeons washed before operating.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
As I stated in a prior post, this has been true for most years for the last 200 years or so. "It is warmer" does not provide evidence for CO2 based AGW, since it has been getting warmer for at least 200 years.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
No point in trying to persuade people in denial about Global Warming of anything. They're shills, morons or trolls, and not open to persuasion by logic and science.
So really, the best strategy is to ridicule and insult them, the same way you'd ridicule and insult a child molester trying to argue from the anonymous safety of their parents' basement that raping children isn't really all that bad.
Re: (Score:2)
If pedophiles ever get a social justice campaign, it will be conservatives running it.
And did you ever stop to think that your 8-year-old might have wanted to change sex so it would make him/her less desirable to you, and therefore better able to grow up as a child rather than a sex object?
Re: (Score:2)
Go get hit by a bus cunt
What is a bus cunt? And what would be the effect if one hit you?
Re: (Score:1)
So to take this comment at face value, the question is what is the hypothetical course suggested by denying that mankind is driving climate change?
If the hypothesis that mankind driving climate change is somehow incorrect, then the 'misguided' actions to fix it would have produced cleaner environment and mitigated our consumption of resources that we cannot renew once exhausted.
If the hypothesis is correct but we reject it and instead demand proof and instead go full coal rolling and burn hydrocarbons full
Re: (Score:2)
The question is, what in the world is the downside of curbing our CO2 activity? Why would anyone be so vehemently against doing that. Sure, make arguments we need to continue research and measure the effects and don't presume victory, but at least make a go of our current best guess, with the undeniable side effects of conserving petroleum (that won't last forever) and reducing related pollutants.
What would one possibly hope to accomplish by fighting *any* attempt at mitigating the situation?
Model supported by evidence [Re:Misused words] (Score:5, Insightful)
NASA does not have a long-standing finding that Mankind is driving climate change; they have a long-standing belief, and have made statements, but still no scientific proof.
They have a hypothesis, which is incorporated into a model, and the model is compared to measurements.
That's the way science is done.
So far, the model is supported by the evidence, and the null hypothesis-- that climate is not being influenced by human emissions of greenhouse gasses-- is very strongly ruled out by the evidence.
If you want to not believe the model, what you do is need to find an alternative model that is not contradicted by the evidence-- one that fits the measurements better than the standard model. So far, such an alternate model has not been put forth.
This is how science is done. "Scientific proof" really is a word used by popularizers; it's not used by scientists. Scientists talk about whether a model is supported by the evidence or not. So far, the models are.
Re: (Score:2)
Science makes models supported by evidence (Score:2)
They have a hypothesis, which is incorporated into a model, and the model is compared to measurements. That's the way science is done.
So far, the model is supported by the evidence, and the null hypothesis-- that climate is not being influenced by human emissions of greenhouse gasses-- is very strongly ruled out by the evidence.
It's far from the only way science is done - try repeatable experiment, or control group (obviously difficult).
A repeatable experiment is one way to compare models to results, of course. In some fields, like astronomy and climate science, however, we use measurements. Either way, however, the point is to compare models with results.
That's how science is done.
If you want to not believe the model, what you do is need to find an alternative model that is not contradicted by the evidence-- one that fits the measurements better than the standard model. So far, such an alternate model has not been put forth.
Someone not believing the model does not have to provide an alternative.
Obviously you're not a scientist, because in fact this is how science is done. You compare your hypothesis to an alternative hypothesis, and keep throwing out the hypothesis that doesn't match the observations.
The null hypothesis (LOOK IT UP), that human car
Re:SUN (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, the sun heats the Earth, but CO2 slows the rate at which that heat escapes.
"As for the 420ppm is nothing" B.S. - The atmosphere is composed primarily of nitrogen(~78%), oxygen(~21%), and argon(~0.9%), all of which are transparent to infrared radiation, and thus irrelevant to the greenhouse effect that keeps our planet from being a frozen ball of ice. That leaves the last 0.1% of trace gasses for greenhouse warming - and over 93% of that is CO2. (There's also water, but that varies wildly and self-regulates through evaporation and precipitaion)
Re: (Score:2)
(There's also water, but that varies wildly and self-regulates through evaporation and precipitaion)
Waitaminute. How does water self regulate? If a temperature rise causes evaporation and a temperature decrease causes precipitation then would not this process overwhelm any warming effect from CO2 given the far higher quantity of water on Earth by comparison?
The heat that Earth gets comes from the sun, with minor additions from things like radioactive decay, cosmic radiation, and so on. This heat is dissipated into space by the rotation of the Earth in relation to the sun, and the movement of a powerful
Re: (Score:2)
You are correct, I just didn't want to get into the details with someone who quite likely doesn't care. Especially since the behavior of water in the atmosphere is quite complex, and not completely well understood (e.g. do clouds reflect more sunlight and cool the planet, or more infrared and warm it? Recent studies suggest the latter, though a narrow enough margin that there may actually be no net effect either way".) It's still very much an area of active research, and I'm far from an expert. I can gi
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, rounding errors exist. But look at your own source a little more carefully, my error was in the 0.1%, NOT the 93%: All trace gasses combined are actually 0.04338% rather than 0.1%. Which means that CO2 is 0.0407%/0.04338% = 93.82% of all trace gasses. And it's worth noting that most of the remaining gasses are ALSO not greenhouse gasses, so CO2 is approaching 100% of greenhouse gasses.
You also seem to be willfully ignoring the fact that the percentage of CO2 is only miniscule compared to the gasses
Re:Misused words (Score:5, Insightful)
I've been hearing this a lot more frequently recently, and I wonder what you think scientific "proof" is, and what happens when something is scientifically "proven"?
The reason I ask is that I'm married to a scientist (as it turns out a geophysicist), and as a technologist I've spent decades of my life dealing with scientists and scientific data, and I do not believe I have ever heard a scientist utter the word "proof" in connection to any scientific question. I've heard lawyers, politicians and other laymen do so... even science teachers. I've seen movie scientists talking about proving things. But never actual scientists, at least not when they're talking among themselves.
I think this is because "proof" presupposes something that's outside the scientific paradigm -- establishing a kind of unassailable truth.
It is simply factually false to say there are no findings that there has been warming, but I think you are using "finding" in a way that a scientists would not. There have been findings that contradict the warming hypothesis all along, as well as findings that support it. But when you look at systematic reviews, they have for decades now concluded that the bulk of the evidence is overwhelming in favor of anthropogenic climate change. But I have a feeling that isn't really "proof", which seems to mean "beyond any possible doubt".
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
...but still no scientific proof
Proofs are for mathematicians. Scientists work with things like data, hypotheses, and predictions.
Re: (Score:2)
Summary misses a key point (Score:5, Informative)
The summary points out that 2018 was the fourth hottest year on record, but neglects to mention that the three hotter years were all this decade, with 2016 being the hottest since records began.
Of course, nothing with stop the global warming deniers...
Internet is becoming more civil? (Score:2)
Sorry, I am more worried about polution then GW (Score:1)
Where you have ground water needing to be filtered and clean to make it drinkable. You have a problem
When you have a area of a very large ocean so polluted that it is visible from space. You have a problem
When you look out any window, any place, any where and see trash. You have a problem.
When you have to wear a mask to go outside so that you can breath. You have a problem.
P
Re:Sorry, I am more worried about polution then GW (Score:5, Insightful)
Pollution will us much quicker than fucking Global warming.
You accidentally a word there.
you put a stop to pollution, your fucking Global Warming crisis will disappear.
Sure, as long as you include CO2 pollution.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The water in lakes and rivers is much cleaner than it was 20 years ago. And even cleaner compared to 30 years ago.
The air is much cleaner than it was 20 years ago. And even cleaner compared to 30 years ago.
Trash and littering are much less of a problem than 20 or especially 30 years ago.
Groundwater has always needed filtering, in most parts of the world.
Those are just facts. If you live somewhere else, where it's getting dirtier instead... that's
This is your Climate Change post of the day (Score:1)
We only have 20 years, for the 3rd time in a row, to save the planet before we all die.
Up next: The fear mongering Net Neutrality article if the day where we pretend its about equal bandwidth rules when it's actually about kicking conservative media off the internet.
Re: (Score:2)
Up next: The fear mongering Net Neutrality article if the day where we pretend its about equal bandwidth rules when it's actually about kicking conservative media off the internet.
Whut? How is making sure conservatives can get their traffic about kicking them off the internets?
I don't care about the problem, give me solutions. (Score:3)
Whatever, another article about how we are all doomed.
Here's what I want to see, solutions that work. Wind and solar don't work because without massive levels of storage to even out the varying load to the varying demand then it simply cannot keep the lights on. Also, add up all the resources needed to build all these windmills, solar panels, and batteries, and you will find yourself a situation that will destroy the economy and/or the environment in trying to dig up all the materials needed.
You think wind and solar don't have any environmental impact? Where do you think all that steel, aluminum, copper, concrete, rare earth elements, and so on come from? We dig it out of the ground, that's where it comes from. Same for the batteries, that stuff has to be dug up, refined, machined, molded, and transported to the construction site. This takes energy and materials. Energy and materials we cannot produce in any meaningful time frame.
We need solutions, not another restatement of the problem. Seems no one wants to speak of what that solution might be.
Oh, and I give citations on why the solutions brought up so often will not work.
http://www.roadmaptonowhere.co... [roadmaptonowhere.com]
http://cmo-ripu.blogspot.com/2... [blogspot.com]
https://www.withouthotair.com/ [withouthotair.com]
Re: (Score:2)
If you reject all solutions by claiming without any credible evidence that they "don't work", what's the point?
My credible evidence:
http://cmo-ripu.blogspot.com/2... [blogspot.com]
I'm taking Dr. Ripu Malhotra as far more credible evidence than most. Same for Dr. Patrick Moore. There's many others I follow on this topic, all very educated in energy and/or the environment. All far more credible on finding workable solutions than repeating the same mistakes with solar and wind hoping for a different result. Stop the insanity. We've had the solution for our power needs decades ago but it seems many are willfully blind to it. Civ
Make up your mind science. (Score:2, Troll)
The best part...the trend line shows the temperature going down not up. Of course this display was
Re: (Score:1)
Make up your mind science
"science" has been pretty consistent on this since the nineteenth century.
Of course this display was back when they were telling us were still in an ice age and all going to die
Oh right you're one of those total fuckwith who confuses the popular press with "science". Your moronic claims have been debunked time and time and time again. The only reason for still holding them is blatant, willful ignorance.
I've got plenty guns for dealing with all the starving looters that either cris
Re: (Score:2)
Unless total fuck-whit means well read, informed, educated engineer I think you might not be mistaken on that as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Satellite data, last I heard, has 2018 ranked sixth hottest of all time, so technically you're correct if you're talking about the RSS dataset.
Re: (Score:1)
Satellites don't measure surface temperature
Re: (Score:2)
they measure radiance in IR and microwave bands and so get the surface temperature that way.
sounds like you made a Trump sound bite there. Satellites have been obtaining surface temperature via radiance measurements for decades.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
And if you can't discuss that without shouting HERETIC!!!!, err, "denier", you're just another religious fanatic.
I wont' call you any of those things. I'm just calling you completely misinformed by fossil fuel industry propaganda. When we can see glaciers and ice caps melting at an alarming rate, average sea temperatures rising to the point that marine life is being damaged (let's remember how many billions of people depend on the sea), it becomes quite clear that the climatologists have been holding back the bad news. We have until 2030 to get our collective acts together or future generations are going to be screw
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Why don't they post about solar activity like the upward trend in solar flares and the sun's cycle of sunspots. I beleive lower sunspot activity actually increases the amount of energy expelled into the solar system. What happens when you turn up the furnace in your house . . .it gets hotter.
Because we measure the energy output of the sun and have been measuring it constantly, with good resolution, since the 1960s (and with poorer resolution for longer than that.)
We know that changes in solar activity aren't causing the warming because we measure the changes in solar activity, and the sun is not putting out more energy now than it was in 1960.
(The main change is the 12 year sunspot cycle, which averages out)
Re: (Score:3)
It's so absurd to try and make sweeping assessments of things like climate based on a record that's less than 40 years old. We started tracking data in the 80's...
You might want to read the summary a bit more carefully.
since record-keeping began in 1880
That would be 140 years, not 40 years.
Re: Not even 40 years... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)